Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar

On 11/18/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 3:19 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 17 Nov 2024 20:35:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 3:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

>

I referred to every element of an infinite set of encodings of HHH.

>
Do you mean they are parameterised by the number of steps they simulate?
>

 No I do not mean that.

Then your arguement is based on an equivocation.

Whether or not DDD emulated by HHH ever reaches its
own "return" instruction final halt state has nothing
to do with any of the internal working of HHH as long
as each HHH emulates N steps of its input according
to the semantics of the x86 language.

Except that the behavior DOES depend on if that HHH returns.
Of course, your subjective, non-semantic property of "emulated by HHH" is just a meaningless term, so doesn't really mean anything, so your statement is just nonsense anyway.

 

When each of them correctly emulates N instructions of its input
then N instructions have been correctly emulated. It is despicably
dishonest of you to say that when N instructions have been correctly
emulated that no instructions have been correctly emulating.

>
Then not all instructions have been simulated correctly.

 It is ridiculously stupid to require a non-halting input to be
emulated completely because of the requirement that HHH itself
must halt.

But that it the definition of Non-Halting.
HHH doesn't need to do it, but it needs to answer about the results of the machine that does it,

 All emulating termination analyzers are required to correctly
PREDICT whether or not an unlimited emulation of their input
would cause their own non-termination.

Right, and they need to be CORRECT, and the emulation they are predictiong is NOT their own (unless that *IS* unbounded).
Since the only thing that *HAS* objective halting behavior is a complete program with a fully defined HHH that it is calling, if that HHH doesn't do a complete emulation, then it needs to be answering about the emulation done by something other than itself.

 When someone (that knows better) insists that this emulation
must be complete they merely make a complete jackass of themselves.
 

Nope, YOU make the jackass of yourself by saying definitions don't matter.
You are just proving that your concept of logic allows for lies.

 

>

I never said that N instructions correctly emulated is no
instructions correctly emulated, just that it isn't a correct
emulation that provides the answer for the semantic property of
halting, which requires emulating to the final state or an unbounded
number of steps.

No, but it is the fact that it CAN be emulated for an unbounded number
of steps that makes it non-halting.

>
It cannot be emulated for an unbounded number of steps.

>
???
You can continue to simulate an infinite loop forever.
>

 The violates the design requirement that an emulating termination
analyzer must itself halt.
 

And your HHH violates the design requirement that the answer matches the unbounded emulaiton of the input.
All you are doing is CONFIRMING that halt deciders can not exist, and that your "logic system" is just inconsistant and based on the assumption of lies.
Sorry, you have sunk your reputation to the bottom of the lake of fire, and it seems you are going to be spending your eternity trying to find it.